Oprah with Harry and Meghan: A CBS Primetime Special

[susannah]

1 minute ago, chocolatine said:

I wasn't speculating on how Meghan felt about anything, I was just stating facts that refute several of the claims and allegations she and Harry made in the interview. I also didn't say that Meghan wasn't in pain. Everyone has pain, that's part of being human. I just see Meghan's situation as having been in the wrong environment for her personality and sensibilities, not as someone who was victimized.

In my opinion, I wouldn't take anything I read as fact. In the interview they demonstrated how easy it was for the press to fabricate and twist things.

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, chocolatine said:

The third was the amount of negative press about almost every member of the RF that I've seen since the early 90s, long before Meghan came on the scene.

I think the question is, how much negative press have you seen about any of the royal family, other than Harry, Meghan, and Archie since Meghan arrived on the scene?

The second question is, how many times have you seen the FIRM step in to correct misinformation on others in the royal family, while not once (that I can remember) correcting misinformation on Meghan, or Archie, or even expressing distress at the blatant racism about a baby?  

Just for the hell of it, when was the last time you've seen a negative article in the cooperating press about Camilla, or William, or Kate, or Andrew, or Charles?  Sure, there may have been a softball bone thrown into the mix, but in general, since Meghan arrived?  They are all off the hot seat, while Meghan, literally daily, is pilloried.  

That is the point.  That makes what Harry said about the press quite true, in every respect.  He knows how it works, he was an insider for a long time, still sacrificed to protect William, but he didn't care about that.  However, when his wife and newborn baby were the targets?  He did care.  He tried to stop the lies, went to The Firm, got nowhere, for a very good reason.  He, his wife, and his child didn't matter to the FIRM, only Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, The Queen, and Andrew did, so all press puff pieces for them, and a completely different story for Harry's family.

[susannah]

6 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I think the question is, how much negative press have you seen about any of the royal family, other than Harry, Meghan, and Archie since Meghan arrived on the scene?

The second question is, how many times have you seen the FIRM step in to correct misinformation on others in the royal family, while not once (that I can remember) correcting misinformation on Meghan, or Archie, or even expressing distress at the blatant racism about a baby?  

Just for the hell of it, when was the last time you've seen a negative article in the cooperating press about Camilla, or William, or Kate, or Andrew, or Charles?  Sure, there may have been a softball bone thrown into the mix, but in general, since Meghan arrived?  They are all off the hot seat, while Meghan, literally daily, is pilloried.  

That is the point.  That makes what Harry said about the press quite true, in every respect.  He knows how it works, he was an insider for a long time, still sacrificed to protect William, but he didn't care about that.  However, when his wife and newborn baby were the targets?  He did care.  He tried to stop the lies, went to The Firm, got nowhere, for a very good reason.  He, his wife, and his child didn't matter to the FIRM, only Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, The Queen, and Andrew did, so all press puff pieces for them, and a completely different story for Harry's family.

If there is ANYONE the press needs to pillory, it is Camilla. I am surprised she has the guts to show her face in public. Well, not surprised at all, I guess. I am not an expert but I don't think the press has printed horrible things about any of the family in an ongoing way since Diana, until Meghan.  Harry's younger years mistakes were publicized but then dropped, and BTW, I never heard that William helped him pick out that Nazi uniform and then let Harry take the heat about it, never saying a word. Not cool at all.

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

 The children of William would be in the same boat, except perhaps for George, yet somehow, the palace managed to make Charlotte and Louis princess and prince, leaving only one grandchild of the future King Charles without a title, and more importantly, without security.

I find it quite understandable and right that William's younger children are treated in a different way that Harry's children. William will become eventually the Prince of Wales and thereafter the King and eventually his children will marry and get children of their own. Then Harry's children would be in the same position as Andrew's daughters - they have titles but they aren't needed to anything.

If H&M had been wise (and looked at children of Andrew, Edward and Anne), they should have themselves wanted that their children would have got no royal titles but *freedom* to live their own life without pre-determined role and responsibilities.

The Sovereign doesn't give titles to give security. The matter should have dealt in another way.

[Hiyo]

Quote

He, his wife, and his child didn't matter to the FIRM, only Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, The Queen, and Andrew did

I'd knock off Camilla and Kate from that list as well. With the exception of Andrew, the sovereign and future sovereigns are usually the only things that matter. Camilla and Kate are just as disposable as the previous Princess of Wales.

[Roseanna]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

 Unflattering stories certainly existed, but after Harry and Meghan married, the "unflattering" stories were all (or very nearly all) about THEM.  Also, they were endless, daily attacks on them, never refuted or challenged by the palace. 

I think that you forget that the big source of these unflattering stories was Meghan's own family, her father and half-sister. Because of those stories, many people began to see Meghan on the basis of their own experiences, either negatively ("I have never have difficulties like that - there must be something wrong in her when her own family criticizes her), positively ("I have known people like her half-sister - the only way to deal with them is to cut relationships") or neutrally ("I can't know what the truth is, but no sensible people make their family quarrels public - it's the surest way not to better relationships").      

[PeterPirate]

6 hours ago, Hiyo said:

Have Meghan and Harry moved the monarchy closer towards its end? If only.

I don't think the question is whether the English monarchy will survive.  It's whether the Commonwealth and/or the United Kingdom will survive.  

And here's another take on the interview and the current situation.  I gather that some people take umbrage at Paul Burrell, but I personally found the interview very balanced and insightful.  

 

[Hiyo]

Quote

I don't think the question is whether the English monarchy will survive.  It's whether the Commonwealth and/or the United Kingdom will survive.  

It usually becomes a question whenever something scandalous like this happens. And it is something people are discussing now, even though there is a good chance the monarchy will survive this as well.

The Commonwealth, who knows. As for the UK, Brexit will probably affect it's chances for survival more than anything that happens with the monarchy.

[Kromm]

10 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Prince Harry And Meghan Markle’s Wedding Choir Releases Their Own Statement After False Stories

This article just speaks to the whole issue of the tabloids making up utter crap and lying and lying and lying.  They won't be happy until they've hounded Meghan to death or at least another miscarriage.

"Words were put into our mouths that we did not say". Hmm. Sounds familiar.  The Royal Press and the BRF seem to return to that playbook a lot. 

The reason I add the BRF to this instead of JUST the press is because of the specific lie. That they "found it hard to believe that Prince Charles was the one who expressed concern over how dark Archie’s skin could be". 

Who does that lie serve, who's purpose I mean?  It's not credible the press just made it up for no reason. They were TOLD to make it up. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Kromm

[Ellaria Sand]

16 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I wish Meghan would have kept the matter secret for now it may seem that she can't differ fact and fiction of her own mind and that H&M only *acted* in the church and deceived their guests and audience.    

Re the bolded part...why should any of us as bystanders decide what is going on in Meghan's mind? Isn't this part of the greater problem?

16 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I honestly don't understand the uproar about the "private wedding ceremony."

13 hours ago, kieyra said:

For what it’s worth, I don’t feel like one ceremony has to be realer or truthier than another in the first place. Maybe that’s my whole disconnect with the wedding subplot. 

Agree with these statements. They had a private ceremony. Good for them. That was the ceremony that meant something to them. Wonderful! There are reasons to object to the "spectacle" ceremony not the private one.

 

7 hours ago, susannah said:

I don't agree that anyone can know how Meghan felt about anything. Also, there are definitely women who "have it worse," in some ways, but that doesn't change or negate Megan's pain. Having privilege doesn't eliminate anyone's pain.

Thank you! I don't understand the need to negate or question her pain. Sure, there are plenty of women who have it worse - whose pain may never go away. However, we are talking about a one woman here - Meghan - who publicly described her pain. Perhaps some do not want to hear that a person of privilege has suffered or perhaps some simply don't believe her. I choose to believe her and, instead, hope that all women are believed and are able to find help when they ask for it.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Ellaria Sand

[Kromm]

8 hours ago, chocolatine said:

The insinuation that the RF is in full control of what the British press writes about them and chooses which members to "sacrifice.

I'm sorry, but this is a good example of selectively parsing and changing what they said to try and indict their believability off something they never stated. 

Nobody's said the RF has" full control" of the press. Meghan didn't say it. Harry didn't say it. Oprah didn't even say it. I don't believe I've seen people here taking up on their behalf saying it. 

People have spoken of the press being in the pocket of the RF, sure, and of a clear plan/agreement peddling continued access to the family for specific reporting, but nobody's made the leap that's total control, or that at other points of history, before that agreement, other Royals didn't get hit by the tabloids. In fact, Harry was one such example. Before Meghan he was a favored target, and the RF supported that, because it kept heat off Charles and William. 

Today, the Royal Press could write more stories about Andrew.  They just largely choose not to, because their access would get cut off. 

That's not full control, but it's damn effective. 

Charles, who's effectively the head of the family (Philip is still credited as that, but let's be real... it's been Charles for a long time--the Queen is the Monarch, not the head of the family) is of course also protecting himself.  When his mother dies, he BADLY wants the narrative of the people wanting him to be King. And he'll do almost anything to that end. 

 

[Ohiopirate02]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I think the question is, how much negative press have you seen about any of the royal family, other than Harry, Meghan, and Archie since Meghan arrived on the scene?

The second question is, how many times have you seen the FIRM step in to correct misinformation on others in the royal family, while not once (that I can remember) correcting misinformation on Meghan, or Archie, or even expressing distress at the blatant racism about a baby?  

Just for the hell of it, when was the last time you've seen a negative article in the cooperating press about Camilla, or William, or Kate, or Andrew, or Charles?  Sure, there may have been a softball bone thrown into the mix, but in general, since Meghan arrived?  They are all off the hot seat, while Meghan, literally daily, is pilloried.  

That is the point.  That makes what Harry said about the press quite true, in every respect.  He knows how it works, he was an insider for a long time, still sacrificed to protect William, but he didn't care about that.  However, when his wife and newborn baby were the targets?  He did care.  He tried to stop the lies, went to The Firm, got nowhere, for a very good reason.  He, his wife, and his child didn't matter to the FIRM, only Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, The Queen, and Andrew did, so all press puff pieces for them, and a completely different story for Harry's family.

I remember a day back in summer 2019 when the story broke that alleged William cheated on Kate when she was pregnant with Louis.   The story hung around long enough that either Vanity Fair or Town and Country ran an article to inform their American audience who the other woman was.  The British press retracted that story in less than a day.  If the BRF has enough influence to make that story disappear,  then they could have extended the same courtesy to Harry and Meghan. 

[Crs97]

Given the email that they wanted Harry to sign a statement absolving William of the bullying claims made by the tabloids, the Firm absolutely steps in to refute stories when they want to.  I can totally understand Meghan’s depression when at her most vulnerable she was forced to accept that the Firm had absolutely no interest in stepping up to help her.

[Kromm]

Sadly the French don't seem to quite get it. 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/14/europe/charlie-hebdo-meghan-intl-scli-gbr/index.html

Invoking the spirits of George Floyd and Derrick Chauvin completely misses the point, despite Meghan using the word "breathe" at one point. It trivializes things by setting up an inherently over the top parallel. 

[CountryGirl]

Going back to the title discussion and the interview for a moment.

Technically speaking, when Archie was born, he could have used the title of Earl of Dumbarton because he is a great-grandson of the monarch in the male line, and because his father, Prince Harry, has a ducal title (the Duke of Sussex). At the time, it was thought that Harry and Meghan had chosen to forgo the title for their son—but during the interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan said that wasn’t the case. She claimed that it was, in fact, the institution of the monarchy that didn’t want her and Harry’s child to have a title, which the couple learned while she was pregnant with Archie.

"They were saying they didn't want him to be a Prince or Princess, which would be different from protocol, and that he wasn't going to receive security," Meghan said. "This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy where I was going, hold on for a second."

She explained further, "They said [he's not going to get security], because he's not going to be a Prince. Okay, well, he needs to be safe so we're not saying don't make him a Prince or Princess, but if you're saying the title is what's going to affect that protection, we haven't created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder you've allowed that to happen which means our son needs to be safe." 

The Duchess said that no suitable explanation was given for why they didn't want Archie to want to have a title—but that if he needed to have a title to receive security, she did want him to have a one: “If it meant he was going to be safe, of course.”

As I've said previously, #notaboutthetitle - it was about protection for Archie.

As far as which protocol, there's no way to know which protocol Meghan was referring to initially. The 1917 Letters Patent protocol limited the “HRH” designation to the children of the sovereign, grandchildren in the male line, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, which is why Archie could use the Earl of Dumbarton title (as a son of a duke) but would not be a Prince. But there were two exceptions made to this (in 1948 when George VI gave heir apparent Elizabeth, then pregnant with first child Charles, a Letters Patent to give her children royal/HRH status before she succeeded to the throne. So making all of the grandchildren of the current monarch royal/HRH. Then there was the second protocol in 2012 which gave all of William's children royal/HRH status before Charles succeeded to the throne. As an aside, I do like that they changed it so that if a daughter had been born first, she would have been queen). QE II could have changed it to include Harry's children as well but did not (he was unmarried at the time, of course, but he didn't need to be married to be included). I can see Meghan's point if the protocol was changed not once, but twice (the first time to include all the current monarch's grandchildren, the second to include some of the future monarch's grandchildren/current monarch's great-grandchildren). 

Obviously, either way, Archie doesn't get the HRH title here but that was not the end of the discussion in the interview, and there was a very important point raised that I don't think I've seen as of yet.

Meghan also mentioned that the Firm wanted to change the current conventions, which would make Archie automatically a Prince when Charles becomes King. "Even with that convention (1948 LP), they said, 'I want to change the convention for Archie.' Well, why?" So this could have been the protocol she was referring to a few moments earlier in the interview and she was right to question it. 

So Meghan's reaction to the title was not only that he wasn't going to be given a title at birth or the protection one isn't crazy to think a grandchild of the future monarch would receive given the history and precedent noted above, which the protocol is what it is, but more significantly, she was told by the Firm that Archie would never get the title, not even when Charles became king. Which is against the current protocol.

Clearly this was a concern for Meghan, and rightfully so, given that Archie would be "the first member of color in this family (that) isn't being titled in the same way as other grandchildren would be" and that's when they segued into the "concerns and conversations about how dark Archie's skin might be when he was born." And even if this is to align with Charles' plans to slim down the monarchy, which was not provided as the rationale and also flies in the face when all of William's children, not just George, already had the title ahead of schedule, I do find it very odd and find the allegation that Archie is being singled out quite compelling and far from false, especially with the full context and the skin color discussion that immediately followed.

[susannah]

1 hour ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Re the bolded part...why should any of us as bystanders decide what is going on in Meghan's mind? Isn't this part of the greater problem?

Agree with these statements. They had a private ceremony. Good for them. That was the ceremony that meant something to them. Wonderful! There are reasons to object to the "spectacle" ceremony not the private one.

 

Thank you! I don't understand the need to negate or question her pain. Sure, there are plenty of women who have it worse - whose pain may never go away. However, we are talking about a one woman here - Meghan - who publicly described her pain. Perhaps some do not want to hear that a person of privilege has suffered or perhaps some simply don't believe her. I choose to believe her and, instead, hope that all women are believed and are able to find help when they ask for it.

I agree with everything you said! I don't get the furor over the mini wedding/grand wedding. I think it is lovely that they had a private moment, before they had to appear before the entire world. Real marriage is the joining of hearts and souls, legal or not, however it's done. The marriage license and a qualified officiant merely satisfy the civil/legal requirements. Also, I think that people who feel angry at the thought that someone who appears to have it all dares to voice having real problems, feel a kind of jealousy. I was not one bit surprised to hear that Meghan had had such a painful experience because the Family did the exact same thing to Diana, driving her to those same dark places. Castle walls and money don't help that. I am shocked to read here that William was suspected of having an affair. I always have thought he was a very good, responsible, giving man, looking out for Harry, and had a solid marriage with Catherine.

[Kromm]

11 minutes ago, susannah said:

I don't get the furor over the mini wedding/grand wedding.

While I won't assume one motive for everyone upset about it, in large part I think a lot of the furor over the private service has been generated as a "gotcha" on Meghan. 

Like projecting assumptions about her being denied a certain level of mental health assistance because Harry had a shrink is an attempt to create a gotcha. 

Like focusing on a notion that she's throwing Kate under the bus over the crying thing is to create a gotcha. 

Like focusing on the "privacy" trial but them talking in an interview is to create a gotcha. 

Like lobbing charges of insensitivity over the date of the broadcast, something they literally had no control over, was to create a gotcha. 

There are tons more. Even barbed comments I've seen elsewhere about how the chicken coop and eggs sequence was some super-manipulative tactic to make them appear more common/of the people.  Which may actually be true, but only in the sense that when some producer approached them about the followup for the next day, they purposefully picked an environment that made them look good.  Big deal!

 

[CountryGirl]

Archie's Chick Inn was just adorable.

I'm totally going to steal that idea for the farm I keep dreaming about having someday.

And I love that Oprah took home some eggs. I would have, too!

[Door County Cherry]

Hi everyone!

The farther away we get from the interview, the more the thread is going over the same points and/or finding it easier to wander off topic.

For that reason, it's time for the thread to close.